HBO Go “maybe,” “could” evolve into a broadband-based subscription

Game of Thrones on your tablet without the cable subscription? It's possible.

HBO has given people who listen forlornly to their friends talking about new episodes of Girls or Boardwalk Empire the barest of hopeful tidbits to snack on: HBO Go “maybe,” “could” be bundled as a service from broadband providers, in place of or addition to cable provider partnerships. Reuters reports that HBO has yet to work out the numbers, but to us the company sounds about 40 percent sure that it’s certain that this could, indeed, happen.

HBO shows are highly inaccessible given the digital age we live in. Game of Thrones in particular suffers from a high rate of piracy, which some indignant viewers and lookers-on attribute to the lack of availability of HBO’s programs. HBO does not participate in services like iTunes Season Pass or Hulu, and unless one subscribes to a full cable service package and pays an extra fee for HBO’s channels, the only other legitimate avenue to an HBO show is waiting for it to be released on DVD. HBO Go is the service’s digital extension that makes shows available on tablets, smartphones, and the Web, but only to cable subscribers.

With such a move, HBO could risk stepping on the toes of the cable providers who pay heavy subscription fees for the exclusivity HBO commits to. But then, cable providers and broadband providers are often two arms on the same body (Comcast, Time Warner). If HBO could transfer its subscription fees to broadband bills rather than cable ones, there could be a situation amenable to all parties.

Here's to hoping that such a service would be on equal footing to its TV counter part with simultaneous content launches and not a second class offering with heavy delays to make the TV version more lucrative.

Or they could recognize that Netflix currently has more subscribers than HBO does and it's still growing. Enter into a "premium" agreement with them where users can add HBO content for $15 a month and even of they lose some subscribers due to cable cos. screwing with them the new subscribers through Netflix could easily offset that.

If HBO could transfer its subscription fees to broadband bills rather than cable ones, there could be a situation amenable to all parties

And there's the kicker.

I wouldn't mind paying a surcharge on my broadband bill for HBO, so long as it wasn't ridiculous. My problem right now is that I have to add standard cable to my bill (so, 100's of channels of mediocrity at best) and then get a set top box, and then pay the HBO surcharge. If you removed standard cable and the set top boxes from the equation, so I could watch HBO on demand on my Apple TV (or Roku, Xbox, tablet, etc.) for just that surcharge, I would already be paying it. So, as things are today, HBO is getting none of my money. If they did this, they would get some, although perhaps less than they get from the cable companies via the existing model.

Cable companies are desperately trying to avoid a future where they're just a big dumb pipe that consumers use to find their entertainment on their own. They might crow about HD streaming taking up too much of their last-mile bandwidth, but what they really want is to be the gatekeepers for content.

The whole vertical integration thing is gross. These big conglomerates hold their own channels back from appearing on rival telecoms' systems until they can get package deals that keep their unpopular channels on every customer's bill. They don't count their own internet streaming system towards their customers' caps, but bitch and moan if Netflix tries to set up a nearby CDN node.

I just keep thinking that they could make so much more by partnering with a company that already has the network backbone to support lots of streaming. I'd definitely pay a separate surcharge for HBO content on any of the big streaming site (netflix, hulu). Think of it, paying you're normal subscription to netflix ($10) and I'd happily pay another $10-15 a month to get access to HBO content. They'd have to invest 0 dollars in infrastructure and could reap some serious profit. But alas their deals with the existing cable companies probably vehemently prohibits this.

If HBO could transfer its subscription fees to broadband bills rather than cable ones, there could be a situation amenable to all parties

And there's the kicker.

I wouldn't mind paying a surcharge on my broadband bill for HBO, so long as it wasn't ridiculous. My problem right now is that I have to add standard cable to my bill (so, 100's of channels of mediocrity at best) and then get a set top box, and then pay the HBO surcharge. If you removed standard cable and the set top boxes from the equation, so I could watch HBO on demand on my Apple TV (or Roku, Xbox, tablet, etc.) for just that surcharge, I would already be paying it. So, as things are today, HBO is getting none of my money. If they did this, they would get some, although perhaps less than they get from the cable companies via the existing model.

This describes my situation as well. I have no trouble paying for quality content directly, but I'm not going to pay for a bunch of crap I don't need or want just for the right to buy what I do want.

What I've never really understood is why HBO is so worried about upsetting the carriers. What are they going to do, go tell HBO to get stuffed and not carry them anymore? Doesn't seem very damn likely to me.

For those who haven't tried it, HBO Go isn't just an on-demand video service form HBO. That is, it's no tjust a place to watch last night's Game of Thrones whenever you want.

It's an almost complete backlog of all of HBO's original programming, going back to the 1990's. Current episodes are on the service, yes, but there are a lot of shows that aren't broadcast anymore. All the seasons of classic shows like The Wire, Oz, Sex and the City, and Curb Your Enthusiasm. Stand up specials from George Lopez and Dana Gould. They even have old HBO Boxing specials and, of course, Real Sex 1 through 15.

It's better than having a dozen HBO channels on cable. And if they sold it by itself they could make a mint, even if cable companies take retaliatory measures.

What I've never really understood is why HBO is so worried about upsetting the carriers. What are they going to do, go tell HBO to get stuffed and not carry them anymore? Doesn't seem very damn likely to me.

Time Warner owns HBO, so at least in the case of Time Warner Cable, I expect that they don't want HBO available separately, because it might lose them standard cable subscribers. I feel as though they would make more money in the long run by unbundling, but I don't have any numbers to back that up. I'd love for a high-level industry insider to really explain the economics of cable and how it works internally.

The thing that makes Netflix work for me is the low monthly fee and the fact that it works on lots of hardware, not just the one that Netflix gives you. If they started adding optional "network packages" or something like that, so I could choose to pay an extra $10/mo for HBO, and then another $8/mo for AMC, etc., I would totally do it. As it is, Netflix bundles all of their content for a single price, so it's not terribly unlike cable from that point of view, except that it's commercial free, all streaming and cheap.

It felt financially irresponsible when I was paying for an HD Basic cable package for years and not watching it more than 30 minutes a month. It's not that I can't afford it, it's that I get a much greater value from Netflix and then buying individual content that isn't available.

Edit: Bagheera is describing a service that I would LOVE to pay for! It's just not worth the additional $60+ a month for all of the rest of cable to me. It would totally be worth $10 or more a month, though. As it is, I just skip HBO shows.

The only thing that will force their hand is competition. As the likes of netflix grows stronger and more powerful, they will not want to be left behind. As is, I think their hands are tied (with silk strings) by the cable operators/moguls.

At a bare minimum, they should make HBOGO a standalone service in countries where HBO is otherwise not legally available.

Also, I really loved how for a long time people with Time Warner Cable were not eligible for HBOGO despite HBO and TWC having the same parent company. That right there is the fucking poster child for retarded DRM if you ask me.

I hope to the gods that HBO hires some good technical developers to rework their currently very shoddy Flash-based video player for HBOGO.

I can and do routinely stream 1080p videos in HD from Youtube and Vimeo and other sources, and play them without choppiness, frozen frames, dropped audio, or my computer going nuts. Those two companies have put real developer talent behind their very efficient video players.

I've written to them many, many times about this problem. Never, not once, have I even received the courtesy of a reply, let alone an indication that they are aware of this problem. And it'll be a hot day in Winterfell before it ever gets solved, I'll wager.

So this story, which hints that HBO's executive management (which has been behind the technology adoption curve when it comes to streaming-only options for paying customers) is at least willing to listen to the reason of the economic marketplace, gives me some hope.

I only wish that their technical staff for the development of their software had a similar inclination to listen to their customers.

In other words, it will cost as much as just subscribing to the network. I could give two shits about their six month old movies. All I want access to is their own content. So I will continue to subscribe while Game of Throans is broadcasting and catch up on the rest of their shows, then cancel for the rest of the year.

The described service already exists, and is called HBO nordic (only available in scandinavia).I suppose if someone really wanted, they could use some swedish vpn service and subscribe to it.(Lots of people here and in other parts of the world with some technical know-how do the same to get the american version of netflix, itunes and similar services, since the localized versions have _much_ less content).

Until i read this article, i assumed hbo nordic was the same as hbo go but localized, but i guess it's used as a test to see if such a solution is viable.(It costs roughly $12/month, if you subscribe for 12 months. There was an option to pay monthly as well, which cost quite a lot more (can't remember exactly, but maybe 40-50% more)).

They need to grow some balls and just make the content available through streaming. Let people pay for what they want. No bundles, no surcharges. Just offer the content people want, no strings attached, and for a price customers find palatable. It's a service issue. HBO is refusing to offer the kind of service that people are willing to pay for because they think they can get more by not serving them. I think we all know how that's working out.

I wonder how crazy ass expensive they would price it. Because knowing HBO it's not going to be cheap.

Actually, HBO only makes about $7/month per subscriber (you generally pay $15/month for the basic tier access). So if they were to partner with Netflix (or any other existing streaming provider) they probably would make certain that they're getting an equivalent amount (possibly a bit more). It would then be up to the provider to determine how much (unless HBO sets a minimum during negotiations) profit they want to make off of it.

Obviously this wouldn't be the case if HBO were to try and go it alone. There, I expect they'd attempt to offset some of the risk of losing cable subscribers due to cable co. interference with a higher charge, but I find it hard to believe they'd break with the $10-$15/month standard that's currently in place.

Here in Australia, iTunes sells Game of Thrones episode by episode just after its first local showing, which is thankfully very shortly after the US showing. It's even in HD now, so I'm out of reasonable excuses and will be buying it.

Here's to hoping that such a service would be on equal footing to its TV counter part with simultaneous content launches and not a second class offering with heavy delays to make the TV version more lucrative.

It's been online for some months as HBONordic (Scandinavia only), so I assume it'll be identical to that.

There is no delays in availability in content on that service. Also you can stream from their achieve as you please.